Response to the consultation on the data sharing for identity verification services

(27 February 2023)

To: dea-data-sharing@digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk

I write, as a member of the public and as a small businessman, to provide my response to the consultation on draft legislation to support digital identity verification services.

Before I answer the consultation questionnaire, I will make some general remarks about the subject of this consultation, about government consultations in general, and about government today as a whole. The survey front page exhorts: “Please be as open and frank as you wish.” I have chosen to take that exhortation at face value! Some of my friends may think I am putting my head above the parapet by saying these things. But so be it.

I will begin by saying that over the last 40 years or so, the way in which the UK government has treated the people it is supposed to serve has gone from bad to absolutely atrocious. If there are any half way decent people still left in government, they need to make themselves aware, quickly, of how dire the political situation now is for the people of this country. And of the need for radical change for the better, both immediately and in the longer term.

The subject of this consultation

Mr Burghart talks in his Foreword about government driving “inclusive digital transformation.” I retch when I see words like transformation used by government to describe their policies. I am a human being. I am what I am; I do not either need or want to be transformed in any way. And any attempt to transform me into something I don’t want to be will be resisted with everything I’ve got.

My own experience of “digital transformation”

As to “digital transformation” in government, my experience, as a small businessman, of communicating digitally with government has been extremely negative. For example, when HMRC withdrew its acceptance of cheques as a means of paying corporation tax, and demanded a digital form of payment, I picked what appeared to be the least onerous option, and paid by cheque through the Post Office. The result was that someone in the Post Office got visibility of the cheque, and attempted to forge five cheques on my business account. The effect of “digital transformation” in this case was to increase the likelihood of fraud.

After that experience, I got a company debit card, which I used only to make company tax payments. But now that is no longer viable, since HMRC has imposed a charge on payments by company debit card, which it did not previously. To force people to pay digitally, then to make them pay for the privilege, seems to me an act of bad faith. My work-around is to pay by personal debit card, then to re-imburse myself from the company; but this is a considerable administrative overhead.

As a third example, now that all VAT returns have to be done via Making Tax Digital, I am no longer able to submit VAT returns myself. I have to do it through my accountant, who charges for the service. That is a cost to me, which would not have been necessary if government had not imposed its insane idea of “digital transformation.” Personally, I’d go back to sending forms and cheques through the post, if I could; it’s less costly, and far less hassle than trying to do things digitally.

My view of technology

I am no anti-technology freak; I am a technologist myself! I am willing to use any technology if it brings a benefit to me, and is both usable and affordable. But I will never willingly use a technology that, overall, is a negative to me. And I very strongly resent having tried and trusted technologies discontinued, in favour of things that don’t work for me.

I find myself becoming increasingly reluctant to use the Internet for financial transactions, mainly because of the hassles of logging in to one or another service. And the problems when your computer fails, and you need to set up all your accounts from scratch on its replacement.

The system, whereby you have to field a phone call from the bank before you can complete the transaction, has made things worse. Moreover, since I choose not to have a mobile phone, I am now unable to do any transactions over the Internet from anywhere except my home.

I should also note that, on the two occasions when I have been asked to do on-line identity verification through one of the providers of such services, they have not been able to complete the verification. One of these was when I tried to activate my state pension on-line. The verification failed, and I had to send the application by post instead!

Consultations

As to government consultations in general, I do hope that I am not wasting my time here. For I have noticed a very strong tendency for government in recent years just to “go through the motions” of consulting the people they are supposed to be serving. They do not take any account of, or even acknowledge, the points made by those whose views are not in line with the government agenda of the day.

An example was the 2021 “consultation” on “de-carbonizing the economy,” to which I submitted a 56-page response debunking the case for any kind of de-carbonizing action, and highlighting the huge negative impacts of such action on the quality of life for ordinary people. My views, and the views of those like me, were completely ignored, and the upshot of the “consultation” was that the date for banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars was brought forward from 2040 to 2030.

Two more examples just as egregious have been: The implementation of the London Ultra Low Emissions Zone, despite (as we only found out some years later!) two-thirds of the people who responded to the “consultation” having been against the scheme. And the recent case of the Oxford “15-minute city” and traffic restrictions, still going ahead despite 90 per cent of those who responded to the “consultation” being opposed to the schemes.

These are, in my view, all instances of extremely bad faith by government towards the people. Government should never, ever be dishonest towards the people it is supposed to serve. In my view, dishonesty by any government official towards the people – for example, such as Boris Johnson showed over the Partygate scandal – should be a dismissal offence. And should lead to a lifetime ban from all further employment by government.

Moreover, the timeframes for these “consultations” are repeatedly being telescoped. This consultation had the period in which comments could be submitted restricted to just eight weeks. The road user pricing “consultation” in London allows even less time; just 30 days.

Government as a whole

Which brings me to some more general thoughts on government. I feel anger, contempt and hatred for government today. For its politicians, officials and hangers-on, and for just about everything it does. My level of trust in government is now well below zero. Indeed, my position is that by default, I expect the great majority of what government tells me to be lies, distortions or misinformation.

I also feel that government does not trust me, and does not have any concern for me, for what I think or for what I want. I am coming more and more to think of government as my enemy. And I know that I am not alone in these feelings.

Government is supposed to be for the benefit of the governed – of all the governed. As John Locke put it, it is for “the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules it can be provided for.” And it only has any valid authority when it has the consent of the governed.

I have now reached the point where government has lost, not only my trust and my respect, but my consent too. Further, I have not voted in a general election since 1987. Because, simply put, there is no-one worth voting for. All the political parties that have ever had power are the same-old-same-old pro-establishment, anti-human criminal gangs. This, and the consultation examples above, show that any pretence of “democracy” from government today is a mockery.

Further, I find most of the things that government wants to do to the people it is supposed to serve to be abhorrent. To give just four examples: First, they want to force on us destructive green policies that are not justified by any evidence, or by any objective cost-benefit analysis. Second, they have sought to force on us COVID vaccination passports, so making pariahs out of those of us who are conscientious objectors to unnecessary medical treatment. Third, they violate our human rights and civil liberties. Such as impinging on our freedom of movement, freedom to protest, and one of our most fundamental freedoms of all, freedom of speech.

Fourth, they seek to destroy our right to privacy altogether, by a combination of: Data sharing (on which, I suspect, they plan to go far beyond what is stated in the consultation document). A central bank digital currency (which, I expect, will enable recording on a central database of every financial transaction we make, down to the level of individual supermarket items, and is likely to imply the abolition of cash). And, not quite on the horizon yet but surely in the works, a “Lifestyle Police” seeking to force everyone to conform to the latest policy fad, in “health” or whatever else is the cause du jour. “You ate too much chocolate (or bacon) last week,” for example, “so we’re fining you £100.”

Most of these policies, it seems, are being forced on us because of commitments made by government, on our behalves but without our agreement, to third parties; particularly the United Nations, and (prior to Brexit) the European Union. Indeed, UNESCO is actively aiming towards schemes similar to the UK’s “on-line safety bill,” which is sure to become a “Censor’s Charter” and enable faceless bureaucrats to order material, to which they object, to be taken down as “disinformation,” even if it is simply the truth.

UNCTAD has said: “the creation of a digital identity system is critical to enable every person to fully participate in their society and economy. Without proof of identity, people may be denied access to rights and services.” This is rather odd from a UN organization, considering that their very own Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind.” Meaning, if you’re human, then you have human rights, regardless of what you can or can’t prove.

Moreover, it is common knowledge that the UN has been the driver of the green agenda for more than 50 years. But the commitments John Major made on our behalves at Rio were made without us, the people, having any chance to say “no” to them! Such commitments should never have been made without a full, honest and public debate, and at least a referendum. This, again, is extremely bad faith by government against the people.

I shall now respond specifically to the questions in your consultation.

Question 1

The first condition for new objectives under section 35 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 is that the data sharing should either;

a) improve or target a public service provided to individuals or households; or

b) provide a benefit (whether financial or otherwise) to individuals or households.

To what extent do you agree that the proposed new objective meets at least one of those parts of the first condition?

·        STRONGLY DISAGREE

From my perspective, data sharing, even if forever restricted to ID verification data, will not provide any improvement or benefit of any kind. If extended beyond this, it will open up as a serious possibility the Orwellian nightmare I sketched in my opening section above.

As a veteran of the NO2ID wars, I fought against the database state pushed by New Labour, that they wanted to be a “single source of truth.” We won the battle back then; but this is merely the same idea, writ large and with the big tech companies onside. And it’s being promoted by the Tories! So much for the idea that “democracy” gives people a choice.

In the words of a TV series from the 1960s: “I am not a number. I am a free man.” I am not a kilobyte, a megabyte, a gigabyte, or even a terabyte of information. I am a human being. And I deserve to be treated as a human being.

Question 2

The second condition is that data sharing should improve the well-being of individuals or households.

To what extent do you agree that the proposed new objective meets this second condition?

·        STRONGLY DISAGREE

Same answer as to question 1.

Question 3

The third condition is that the data sharing should support the delivery, administration, monitoring or enforcement of a service provided by a particular public authority (or authorities).

To what extent do you agree that the proposed new objective meets this third condition?

·        STRONGLY DISAGREE

The condition as stated makes no sense. You might be able to enforce a court order or a law against a particular crime, but you cannot enforce a service! Similarly, if “monitoring” means monitoring the quality of the service, that should be explicitly stated.

But the mealy-mouthed nature of these words leaves open the possibility that this proposed legislation could be used to “justify” routinely tracking people electronically everywhere they go. Like a criminal tracking tag, on everyone, all the time. That would be an Orwellian dystopia.

Beyond this, same answer as to question 1.

Question 4

To what extent do you agree that the following government departments should become a public body eligible to share data for public service delivery objectives (these public authorities are listed in Schedule 4)?

·        Cabinet Office

·        Department for Transport

·        Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs

·        Disclosure and Barring Service

 

·        STRONGLY DISAGREE

No government department should ever hold any personal data beyond the absolute minimum it needs in order to perform its functions.

All personal data accessible to any government department should be covered by the right of access, as per existing subject access requests. And there must be safeguards in place to ensure that no-one is refused access to the data held on them by government or a private company simply because they are unable to provide proof of ID digitally.

Question 5

To what extent do you agree that the following government departments should be able to share data for the identity verification objective?

·        Cabinet Office

·        Department for Transport

·        Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs

·        Disclosure and Barring Service

 

·        STRONGLY DISAGREE

Same answer as to question 4.

Question 6

Are there any other public authorities not proposed in this consultation which you think should be able to share data for the identity verification objective?

·        NO

Question 7

To what extent do you agree that the data items, known as data attributes, as described under this proposed objective are consistent with, and appropriate for, the delivery of the objective?

·        STRONGLY DISAGREE

I assume that the data items referred to are those listed under the “What data will be processed” heading in the consultation detail document.

“Photographic images” covers a very wide spectrum, and such data could very easily be misused.

“Transactional data, for example income” seems to cover a very wide spectrum indeed. I can understand that historical transaction records may be useful if a department wishes to use the person’s knowledge of a particular past transaction with that department in confirming their identity. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions (already covered by this legislation) might keep pension payment records against a personal record for such a purpose. But otherwise, I cannot conceive of how any such data could help with identification.

“Other data items may be processed as identity verification services develop.” This is open-ended, and looks as if it could easily be extended without supervision by parliament or anyone else.

Any such extra data would, of course, need to be available via a subject access request.

Question 8

To what extent do you consider the proposed sharing of data for the identity verification objective will lead to any individual and/or household losing any benefit?

·        NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE

I found this question very hard to answer. Partly because the effect on individuals will be very dependent on how it is done. But it seems probable that data from one department, when used by another, is more likely to produce false rejections (as well as false acceptances), perhaps leading to an inability to complete the identification process, and thus an inability to access services. If that merits an AGREE response, please change my response to that.

Question 9

To what extent do you consider the proposed sharing of data for the identity verification objective will lead to an individual and/or household losing access to a service?

·        NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE

It is very concerning that someone who can supply ID such as a passport, but cannot for whatever reason pass a digital ID check, should be in danger of being locked out of any service.

Otherwise, same as answer to question 8.

Question 10

Do you think the proposed sharing of data for the identity verification objective will negatively impact on people who share any of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 (i.e. age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation)?

·        YES

It will hit very badly those older people, who are unused to technology and may well find it difficult and frustrating, or even impossible, to get their identity verified digitally.

Depending on how it is implemented, it may impact badly on people who are not dexterous enough to use, or have chosen not to have, a mobile phone.

People who have suffered what they perceive as gender changes may also be harmed by these proposals, as they may end up with duplicate and conflicting records.

Question 11

Do you have further comments on this proposed objective?

In putting together these replies, I have found myself coming towards the view that the “digital transformation” may well be, even given the best intentions, a wild goose chase. The need for on-line identity verification arises because of the nature of the on-line medium. The need to communicate with government on-line, in turn, arises from the idea of a “digital transformation.” I think it would be appropriate to re-consider the wisdom of that entire “transformation” process. Particularly also, given that the people of the UK have never before been given any chance to assess this “transformation,” and to accept or reject it. And even more so, if it is being driven by forces outside the UK, and has therefore bypassed all the checks and balances that any democracy ought to have in place.

I am not sanguine that these proposals will do anything at all to protect people against government expansion and over-reach, either today or in the future. The Orwellian nature of the consequences of any such expansion or over-reach is clear.

Moreover, why is government offering identity checking services at all? Something which, particularly given that government is the monopolist of formal identities such as passports, seems inappropriate. But are the private identity checking services, like Verizon, fit for purpose? From what I see, the answer is no. That doesn’t mean that government should take over the task. But rather, it suggests that digital identity checks are not a good way to go forward.

In any case, it MUST be possible for individuals to choose not to use digital ID tools whether provided by government or not). And alternative mechanisms must be in place which allow people who so wish to continue to use, indefinitely, tried and trusted methods of identification at no extra cost. That includes signed letters, and cheques by post.

Question 12

Please indicate whether you are happy for the relevant points and comments you have made to be published in the consultation summary report:

·        I AM HAPPY FOR MY RESPONSES TO BE PUBLISHED ALONGSIDE MY NAME

 

An Open Letter to Mark Harper MP, secretary of state for transport

From: Neil Lock

Sent: 17 February 2023 11:45
To: 'mark.harper.mp@parliament.uk' <mark.harper.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: Restrictions on driving

Dear Mr Harper,

I write to you in your capacity as secretary of state for transport.

We all know that this government has persistently favoured policies hostile to the interests of car drivers. These include the ULEZ in London, 15-minute cities in Oxford and elsewhere, “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” and “Clean Air Zones,” and schemes being planned by “C40” and “UK 100.” While formally being implemented at local authority level, it has come to my attention that many of these schemes are being funded in part at least by central government, and that therefore central government is providing much of the impetus for the directions in which these policies are moving.

It is stunning that the wishes of the people, whom government exists to serve, have been totally ignored in these matters. A significant majority of those who responded to the consultation on the original ULEZ were against the scheme, yet it still went ahead. I heard from local people in Oxford that 90% of those who responded to the 15-minute city plan were against it, yet that too is going ahead. No democracy worth the name would ever treat its people in such ways. No MP worth the name would ever impose policies hostile to the interests of the people who elected him; and yet you, as MP for the Forest of Dean, a rural area, are going “full steam ahead” with schemes that, if implemented in your own local area, would lead to life grinding to a halt for many people.

It would appear that UK transport policies are being driven, not by the people as should be the case in a democracy, but by political agendas – such as “nett zero” and “clean air” – that originate with the United Nations and their “sustainable development goals,” and are being imposed on the people of the UK against their wills. The views of those who respond to consultations are being ignored, and schemes are going ahead without government making even an attempt at rigorous cost-benefit analysis. A recent report by consultancy CEBR, for example, has shown that, even using the UK government’s own methodology, the costs to the people of the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel cars outweigh any environmental benefits by a factor of at least 5 to 1 (and probably far more). Such pointless and damaging policies are not something that those, who are supposed to represent the people, ought ever to allow to be imposed on those people.

As secretary of state for transport, you have the power to correct this appalling situation that allows costly and destructive policies, favoured by globalist elites and crazy green activists, to be imposed against their wills on people who are just trying to go about their daily lives. Please use that power to intervene to stop all these bad and undemocratic schemes from going ahead, and to ensure that no arm of government, either at national or local level, ever again tries to stop the people of the UK from enjoying the affordable, convenient, private transport which they deserve.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Lock,

Godalming, Surrey

 

Our local enemies

Recently, I had brought to my attention the websites of two organizations of local governments, both of which are using the excuse of “climate change” in their attempts to destroy the last vestiges of individual freedom that are left in the UK.

Rio and after

I’ve been aware for many years of the agreements made on our behalves by John Major and others at the Rio “Earth Summit” back in 1992. These agreements, as many will know, were, and still are, not at all in the best interests of us human beings. It is as if they placed something called “the environment” up on a pedestal, like a deity they wanted to force us to worship. And they made out that the well-being of this “environment” was more important than the well-being of the human beings they were supposed to be serving. This is in complete contradiction to any idea of democracy, or of government by the people, for the people and with the consent of the people. Indeed, I regard it as anti-human conduct to put the interests of some nebulous “environment” ahead of the interests of human beings. They don’t care about our environment. So why should we care about theirs?

Yet, all the mainstream political parties bought into this madness. With the result that, in 30+ years, we have never been offered any opportunity to get these agreements rescinded, or even any way to challenge them.

One of the documents those that like to think of themselves as our masters signed us up to was “Agenda 21.” Subsequently, this morphed into “Agenda 2030,” then in 2015 into the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” Here are the words, which I wrote about it in 2017 after reading the original Agenda 21 for the first time:

“As to Agenda 21, I don’t recommend reading it. It consists of 350 pages of bureaucratese, in which the word ‘women’ occurs more than 250 times. And it takes up where Our Common Future [the 1987 UN report] left off. ‘Significant changes in the consumption patterns of industries, Governments, households and individuals.’ Recycling as a religion. ‘Favouring high-occupancy public transport.’ A ‘culture of safety.’ And much more. But the clever thing about Agenda 21 – another [Maurice] Strong brainwave, I guess – is that it is to be implemented at the local government level. So, because it wasn’t seen as a national political issue, it passed under many people’s radar.”

Back in 1992, Agenda 21 passed under my radar, too. But not now. It, and its successors, are firmly established as weapons of choice for our enemies the political classes in their agenda of destroying Western industrial civilization and human prosperity. And if you think they have been doing bad things to us at the national level – and you’d be right – then you really ought to be thinking more about the bad things they are doing to us at the local level, too. The Oxford “15 minute city” plan is only the thin end of a very large wedge.

To return to the two local government organizations. They are “C40” and “UK 100.” For the most part, I shall let their websites speak for themselves; although I will, of course, interject a few acid remarks, too.

C40

C40 [[1]] describes itself as “A global network of mayors taking urgent action to confront the climate crisis and create a future where everyone can thrive.” Hmmm… not exactly a local government organization, then. How can you possibly vote in any local election, if your “representatives” are going to indulge in this kind of baloney, instead of doing what they ought to be doing, making your local area the best possible place to live? And… what climate crisis? The burden of proving that there is a crisis must always fall on those that are making the claim. And no such proof has ever been forthcoming, nor even any hard evidence.

The About page [[2]] is headed: “This is the defining decade for humanity.” Actually, I agree with them. This is the decade in which, so I expect, the green juggernaut on which they have been riding roughshod over us for 30 years and more will come to the end of its road. This is the decade, in which the general public will finally wake up to the green lies and scams with which we have been bombarded, and see them for what they are – lies and scams. I expect that before the end of the decade we will be seeing the biggest backlash in the history of the human race. And that the perpetrators of these fraudulent scams will be seen as what they are – traitors to human civilization and to the human species.

They say: “Science tells us that we must cut emissions [I presume they mean carbon dioxide emissions] in half by 2030 if we are to avoid runaway climate change. Nothing short of transformational change on a global scale is needed within the decade, but such a shift has never seemed more possible than it does right now.” I really would like to see their “science,” if it actually exists. I’ve been looking hard for the last 15 years for objective evidence, that proves beyond reasonable doubt that emissions of carbon dioxide from human industrial civilization have caused significant damage to the global climate. And, unless such evidence can be found, there is no reason to suppose that these emissions would cause any significant damage in the future, either.

In all my searching, I have not found any such evidence. All I have found is politically charged rhetoric from the usual suspects, such as green activists, dishonest politicians and the UN. Nor have I found anything to show that, even if there had been any such damage, any amount of reduction in emissions would have any effect at all.

As to “transformational change on a global scale,” once again, I agree with them – but not in a way they will be happy with! What we need is to demolish the failed political system, that enables unscrupulous parasites and ruthless pests to use politics to feed off ordinary people, to make bad laws to hurt those they don’t like, to make wars, and to evade responsibility for the consequences to others of what they do. To replace it by an honest, de-centralized system of governance, which works for us human beings; which delivers peace and justice, upholds human rights, and enables maximum freedom of choice and action for all, consistent with living in a civilized community. And, bit by bit, to extend that system world-wide.

Moreover, by justice, I don’t mean some nonsensical “social justice” or “climate justice,” or even “economic justice” – three buzz-phrases C40 like to use. What I mean is what I call common-sense justice; the condition in which each individual is treated, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others. Such a conception of justice will send shivers up the spine of anyone that has ever used politics to drain or to hurt innocent people. Those familiar with them may like to recall these words of the prophet Obadiah: “As thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.”

C40’s mission, so they say, “is to halve the emissions of its member cities within a decade, while improving equity, building resilience, and creating the conditions for everyone, everywhere to thrive.” There’s an obvious problem here. No-one can thrive unless they have freedom; not just economic freedom, but freedom of choice and action in all areas of life. Yet to halve emissions in ten years (even if achievable) would require draconian, top-down interventions by governments to control most, if not all, of the things people do in their everyday lives. The two are fundamentally incompatible.

Moreover: “C40 member cities earn their membership through action. C40’s most distinguishing feature is that it operates on performance-based requirements, not membership fees.” Yeah, right. That’s exactly the way the EU operates; setting “targets” and “limits” to bully national governments into doing what they order, even if those actions go very seriously against the interests of the people those governments are supposed to “represent.” This is the same idea, just at the city level. It is bound, without any doubt, to fail in the end. And messily, too.

They also say: “The change we need can be delivered through our Chair’s vision for a Global Green New Deal, where mayors are working alongside a broad coalition of representatives from labor, business, the youth climate movement and civil society to go further and faster than ever before. The Global Green New Deal is our essential blueprint to delivering climate justice and strong, fairer economies that serve everyone.” Again, shades of the EU’s “green new deal.” If you want to know how that one’s going, ask the Dutch farmers.

C40 has, so its website says, been in existence since 2005. I retched when I found out the name of its founder: “Red Ken” Livingstone, former mayor of London. But in retrospect, I found it hardly surprising; since I already knew the identity of its current chair, a certain Sadiq Khan. Put Boris Johnson in between them, and you have three extremist green stooges in a row as mayors of London.

And every year, they hold a world mayors’ summit, at which they gather and gab about forcing us to reduce our emissions, for example by making us walk or cycle instead of using our cars. But not many of them actually walk or cycle from their homes to and from the mayors’ summit, do they? What a bunch of hypocrites.

UK 100

On to “UK 100” [[3]]. Their membership page [[4]] begins: “As local leaders across the UK, we recognize our responsibility to tackle the climate emergency and take bold action toward Net Zero.” Hmmm… maybe the first thing they should do to “tackle” the non-existent climate emergency is to reduce their own emissions. To zero. Permanently. Problem solved!

The About page says: “UK100 is a network of local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net Zero with Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal target. UK100’s primary purpose is to support a local-led rapid transition to Net Zero and Clean Air. We do this through collaboration. To accelerate action, we believe in bringing together the most influential leaders across the country to learn together and agree on priorities for legislative and regulatory change while empowering them to engage with national decision-makers. We provide our network with the knowledge, tools and connections to make this happen.”

From the list of members (I counted 108), it seems that this is not an organization of mayors, or of individual politicians, but of councils. It includes councils at both the county and district levels, sometimes overlapping. Many of the expected suspects, that have been taken over by green extremists, are there: Bath and North East Somerset, Birmingham, Brighton, Cambridge (and Cambridgeshire, too), Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, 11 London boroughs plus Westminster, Oxford (and Oxfordshire).

That Oxford and Oxfordshire are both in the list, suggests that UK 100 may well be behind the goings-on over the proposed Oxford “15-minute city,” where residents have been told that the scheme will be going ahead, even though the sham “consultation” on the matter showed that over 90% of the voters were opposed to it. So much for any pretence of “democracy!”

There are 13 county councils in the list, including the county in which I live (Surrey). That there are this many, suggests that the extremists do not intend to stop when they have reduced all the UK’s cities to the status of uninhabitable by human beings. It looks as if they plan to carry on extending their mad, bad schemes to towns, to suburbs, to villages, and eventually out into the countryside. By the end of which, almost everyone will in effect be in a prison, circumscribed by the distance they can easily walk (or, if they are young enough, cycle).

This is not a viable future for our human species. It must be stopped. And those that have taken part in the activities of these extremist organizations must be brought to justice, made to compensate those whose lives they have damaged, and punished as severely as they deserve.

How to fight back?

How to fight back against all this? First, since these bad policies are supported by all the current mainstream political parties, you must resolve never again to vote for any of those mainstream parties. To vote for “the lesser of two evils,” or for the least of three or more, is no longer an option; if, indeed, it ever was. You must never again give any kind of support to those that have been doing, and are doing, these things to you. You must never excuse their conduct, never forgive them, and never forget the infamy of what they have done to you.

There are local elections coming up on May 4^th, including a sizeable number of district councils, particularly in England. If you still really do feel you must vote, you might try the Reform UK party, who at least are new and might be a bit better than the slime we suffer under today. I am still a member of Reform UK; but they seem strangely reluctant to grasp the nettle, and to take on the green juggernaut head-on. Certainly, before you vote for any candidate at all, you must make them demonstrate to you that they are utterly opposed to your council taking part in UK 100, or any other green scheme, and will fight against all such schemes with every ounce of will they have.

I am no politician, but I would have thought that to be the only party to oppose the war on our petrol and diesel cars would be an electoral coup. For more than 60% of the electorate are car drivers! As of 2021, only 22% of households did not have access to a car.  Moreover, the practicality and the cost-effectiveness over the whole life-cycle of electric cars are extremely dubious. And there is a high level of concern, among many people (including myself), that they will be forced to give up their cars, not through choice, but because they will be unable to afford to run them any more. Yet, the Reform UK party does not seem even to have tried to latch on to this opportunity. When I reviewed their policy document last November, it made no mention of transport policy at all, beyond scrapping HS2.

But personally, I’ve come to the conclusion that voting is a dead end, and even a liability. If you want to pull down a bad system, you need to do it from the outside, not the inside. Otherwise, you will probably end up like the proverbial Samson! That is why, personally, my primary focus is on writing, trying as best I can to change the prevailing currents of thought.

Others may try joining protest organizations, or civil liberties organizations like Together (who, I am pleased to see, are now working with the Association of British Drivers and others against “low traffic neighbourhoods” and the like). Or both, of course. Each of us must find our own particular way, in which we can fight back most effectively against our oppressors; but it does help to have the support of a group, or groups, of friendly people behind you.

I am wondering whether quiet, small scale, peaceful protests outside polling stations at the upcoming local elections might have some value. I am not aware of any specific restrictions on protests outside polling stations; at least, Liberty’s page on Article 11 [[5]] doesn’t mention anything. But at least such a thing might help people, who are not already aware of C40 and UK 100 and what they are doing to us, to wake up, to find out exactly what is going on, and to join the growing opposition to these fraudulent and freedom-destroying schemes.

---

[[1]] https://www.c40.org/

[[2]] https://www.c40.org/about-c40/

[[3]] https://www.uk100.org/

[[4]] https://www.uk100.org/UK100membership

[[5]] https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/right/right-to-protest/